Secession?

This is a discussion on Secession? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by Crowman
President Coolidge Speech 1924 - YouTube
FYI: America has always been in debt
Historical United States National Debt Balances, 1791-2010
Man, ...

Yup!!! And that's all that needs to be said until either the constitution is amended or a modern Supreme Court has cause to hear a similar case and reverse itself (when donkeys fly).

You know about a hundred and fifty years ago they said the same thing about slavery. And sixty years ago about segregation. Those were the law of the land just like Texas v White. So those were right and just also?

Texas v White was a foregone conclusion. I can easily see Greg Abbott and Ted Cruz arguing the case and winning. That is winning in front of a court whose majority does not owe their position to a man whom if they found secession to be legal would be the 19th century equivalent of Pol Pot or Joe Stalin.

some states are "giver" state and would do ok, like Mass,NY and other high tax states but states like Mississippi or Tennessee are "taker" states and wouldn't survive their first environmental disaster.

Re: Secession?

Originally Posted by Edward7

some states are "giver" state and would do ok, like Mass,NY and other high tax states but states like Mississippi or Tennessee are "taker" states and wouldn't survive their first environmental disaster.

Nearly every state gets more from the Feds than it pays In taxes due to the deficit spending.

In 2009, the last year of available data, NY gave $956B more to the feds than it got; and CA gave $336B more. No, it doesn't mean that the states have a negative relationship with the feds. And at least two states have a lot more money than their electorate has sense.

I'd be a little careful with those numbers. The study they come from did some things that aren't necessarily obvious. For one thing, for every dollar a state's citizens paid in they added an additional partial dollar to account for the deficit in that year which will presumably be collected in the future. Likewise, if a state hosts a military contractor than the money paid to that contractor is included as a "taker". Also, many western states consist of huge tracts of Federal land which the Feds pay for but they pay much less than typical property taxes. If one of those states separated then that land could be developed and produce far more in property taxes than they are currently getting from the feds.

In short, the study is actually pretty decent and is up front about all this but many of the media reports and summaries of it are misleading.

You know about a hundred and fifty years ago they said the same thing about slavery. And sixty years ago about segregation. Those were the law of the land just like Texas v White. So those were right and just also?

Texas v White was a foregone conclusion. I can easily see Greg Abbott and Ted Cruz arguing the case and winning. That is winning in front of a court whose majority does not owe their position to a man whom if they found secession to be legal would be the 19th century equivalent of Pol Pot or Joe Stalin.

WHen donnkeys fly. I can easily see them never getting before the court.

The "conservative" members of the court are all "FEDERALISTS." For some reason people seem to think
they are a state's rights bunch; but they each have been members of the Federalist Society or made speeches to it.

Federalists are adherents of Hamilton's views on interpretation of constitution, and sometimes of Madison's views, though Madison later changed and joined Jefferson as an anti-Federalist. The anti-Federalist promoted secession ideas,
and Jefferson played a role in trying to get two states to secede--- before he became President if my recollection is
correct. After, he would not have countenanced secession and none of the Presidents did. Anyone in that office
would have been obliged to do exactly what Lincoln did.

Federalists were for a strong central government
and with meaningful powers. E.g., President John Adams.

I like the way the movie Lincoln ends with the singing of The Battle Cry of Freedom.

"Hurrah for the Union
Hurrah boys hurrah
Down with the traitors
Up with the star"

Those who promote secession are not only being foolish as a policy matter and a practical matter, but
the are spitting in the faces of everyone who has ever served in our military and on the corpses of all who died
in service of our country.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

"A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

WHen donnkeys fly. I can easily see them never getting before the court.

The "conservative" members of the court are all "FEDERALISTS." For some reason people seem to think
they are a state's rights bunch; but they each have been members of the Federalist Society or made speeches to it.

Federalists are adherents of Hamilton's views on interpretation of constitution, and sometimes of Madison's views, though Madison later changed and joined Jefferson as an anti-Federalist. The anti-Federalist promoted secession ideas,
and Jefferson played a role in trying to get two states to secede--- before he became President if my recollection is
correct. After, he would not have countenanced secession and none of the Presidents did. Anyone in that office
would have been obliged to do exactly what Lincoln did.

Federalists were for a strong central government
and with meaningful powers. E.g., President John Adams.

I like the way the movie Lincoln ends with the singing of The Battle Cry of Freedom.

"Hurrah for the Union
Hurrah boys hurrah
Down with the traitors
Up with the star"

Those who promote secession are not only being foolish as a policy matter and a practical matter, but
the are spitting in the faces of everyone who has ever served in our military and on the corpses of all who died
in service of our country.

First, why are you assuming it would be the federalist (conservative) justices that secessionists would be crafting their case to appeal to?
Second why do you think it is foolish as a policy or practical matter? Economy wise Texas is in better shape than the U.S. in general and would probably be in even better shape without the interference of the federal government. Texas is geographically and economically larger than almost any european nation. As a practical matter Texas becoming a republic again is no less practical than Germany is.
I have worn the uniform of the United States as have many of my friends. We are American by birth but Texan by choice. While we are not advocating secession, if Texas were to secede tomorrow we are not going to pack up our families and go back to where we came from.

First, why are you assuming it would be the federalist (conservative) justices that secessionists would be crafting their case to appeal to?
Second why do you think it is foolish as a policy or practical matter? Economy wise Texas is in better shape than the U.S. in general and would probably be in even better shape without the interference of the federal government. Texas is geographically and economically larger than almost any european nation. As a practical matter Texas becoming a republic again is no less practical than Germany is.
I have worn the uniform of the United States as have many of my friends. We are American by birth but Texan by choice. While we are not advocating secession, if Texas were to secede tomorrow we are not going to pack up our families and go back to where we came from.

Speak for yourself Johny Reb. I'm a Yankee. I'd be outta here.

Your other remarks don't deserve responses because you already know the answers.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

Our votes don't count. The election is 'settled', and 'arranged' months BEFORE you go to the polls. Yes I still vote but I realize it does NO good.

So can I disregard everything else you say, since, by your own admission, you are illogical?

Originally Posted by limatunes

If they knew they would be tried for treason I doubt very seriously that you would see so many names on petitions. It's evidence to the fact that we still have a pretty good gig going here. You can sign a petition declaring you want to abolish your current government and not fear a thing in response.

Great point, and something I needed to be reminded of. Thank you.

Originally Posted by zacii

Treason is never successful. For if it is, none dare call it treason.

Too true. It's easy to take a position once the direction of the political wind is known.

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Those who promote secession are not only being foolish as a policy matter and a practical matter, but the are spitting in the faces of everyone who has ever served in our military and on the corpses of all who died in service of our country.

I disagree. I have served my country for the last 14 years, and I am one of the most patriotic people I know. I don't serve for my government; I serve for myself, my family, my community and my fellow citizens. My oath was to support and protect the Constitution. I serve to preserve--at least in some small way--the freedoms that the Constitution guarantees. First among those freedoms is the right to petition the government for regress of grievances.

So can I disregard everything else you say, since, by your own admission, you are illogical?

Great point, and something I needed to be reminded of. Thank you.

Too true. It's easy to take a position once the direction of the political wind is known.

I disagree. I have served my country for the last 14 years, and I am one of the most patriotic people I know. I don't serve for my government; .

Duh, 1) who is paying your salary. 2) What flag are you saluting 3) Which Constitution are you under oath
to preserve and protect and defend?

If you are serving for your own selfish reasons, the salary, the life style, whatever, that's fine, but you did
take an oath to Preserve Protect and Defend The United States. Advocacy of secession is utterly, completely,
and totally inconsistent with that oath, as The Constitution is what binds us together, and secession is unlawful
under that constitution--- again, Texas v White.

Now, if you want to advocate that there should be a constitutional amendment making secession possible, that is
fine. Good luck though finding 3/4th of the states to go along.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

Ok Hopyard,
Under Article VI all treaties made under authority of the constitution are the law of the land, just as Texas v White is. So what is it about Texas v White that makes it any more binding than the over four hundred treaties made under authority of the constitution between the United States and the native peoples of North America?
Why should the annexation of Texas be treated with any more respect than say the Treaty with the Cherokee of 1791?

The United States government has a long history of unilaterally changing or withdrawing from treaties. Under what legal theory is their ability to do so exclusive?

As far as an amendment goes, I would not be surprised to see one. Over thirty state legislatures have had sovereignty issues kicked around in the last couple of years.